Written evidence from the Restorative
Justice Council (PB 59)
Thank you for inviting us to provide information
on the role that probation trusts could have in delivering restorative
justice processes. There are a number of points the RJC would
like to make on this.
EXISTING PROBATION
PROVISION OF
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
PROCESSES
1. Under
the CJ Act 2003 Restorative Justice can be an activity requirement
of a community sentence. Thames Valley Restorative Justice Service—based
in Thames Valley Probation—is the only service in the country
which has taken up and implemented RJ as an activity requirement
and we would fully endorse their work. Some probation services
also use a restorative approach in their delivery of statutory
victim contact work. In other areas probation staff in prisons
work with chaplaincy and third sector organisations to enable
offender-initiated restorative justice—eg following offender
participation in programmes like Sycamore Tree.
THE EVIDENCE
2. The Home
Office/MoJ funded RJ research programme 2001-8, independently
evaluated by Sheffield University, demonstrated a number of key
things:
— First
that restorative justice works very well with serious offences
by adult offenders, for both victims (80% victim satisfaction)
and in terms of reducing recidivism (latest MoJ analysis suggests
reductions in frequency of re-offending of at least 14% following
participation in RJ).
— Second
that the professional or agency background of the facilitator
is not the critical issue—but the training, supervision
and quality of practice is critical. Probation staff are extremely
well placed to deliver restorative justice processes—but
they need training and support to deliver the model well as it
involves a shift in their professional focus—away from finding
solutions towards enabling victims and offenders to come together
to find their own solutions. Probation staff are well placed to
do this work; but this work could also be commissioned by Probation
Trusts from other statutory, community based or commercial providers.
— Restorative
work—either provided directly by Probation Services, or
commissioned from other providers—should always be delivered
in line with existing national standards—Best Practice Guidance
on restorative practice, the 2010 National Occupational Standards
in restorative practice, and the RJC Trainers Code of Practice.
PRE- AND
POST-SENTENCE
AVAILABILITY OF
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
3. We would
also point out that from the Home Office/MoJ funded Sheffield
evaluation of restorative justice, RJ can clearly be delivered
either pre- or post-sentence for serious adult offences. Pre-sentence
restorative justice has the advantage of providing information
to sentencers, which can help to inform sentencing decisions,
and can lead to reductions in the use of custody. For some victims
however, pre-sentence is too early in their recovery process—particularly
for the most serious crimes. In these cases, post-sentence RJ
should also be available and can be used to help engage offenders
with other support on offer to them as part of a custodial or
community sentence, and can inform parole decisions, and the support
offenders need to re-settle into their communities. They can allow
victims the opportunity to influence conditions of release from
custody.
REVIEW OF
BEST PRACTICE
GUIDANCE, AND
NEW NOMS SERVICE
DELIVERY MODEL,
IN THE
LIGHT OF
RESEARCH EVIDENCE
AND PRACTICE
DEVELOPMENTS
4. The RJC
has been commissioned by the MoJ to review the 2004 Home Office
Best Practice Guidance in the light of research and practice developments
over the last six years. The 2010 Best Practice Guidance will
be published later this year. We are also working with NOMS to
help design a service delivery model for NOMS for RJ, based on
the 2010 Best Practice Guidance and on the evidence of cost-effective
models here and in Northern Ireland (Youth Conferencing).
SUMMARY OF
KEY POINTS
5. The key
points we would like to make therefore are:
1. That
there are many opportunities for Probation Trusts to provide,
or commission from other providers, restorative justice processes.
2. There is strong research evidence that these
processes both benefit victims and deliver reductions in the frequency
of re-offending, leading to cost-savings for CJ agencies and across
society to the order of £9 for every £1 spent on delivering
RJ (using Home Office standard cost of crime measures)
3. Any RJ delivered, or commissioned by, Probation
Trusts, should be commissioned in line with Best Practice Guidance,
and the 2010 National Occupational Standards.
4. Legislative developments should ensure that
RJ is available pre-sentence—to inform sentencing decisions,
and post-sentence for victims or offenders for whom pre-sentence
RJ is too soon in their recovery/rehabilitation process.
October2011
| 
